[Clas_hadron] dnp presentation

[Mac Mestayer]

Hello Chandra;

It's a shame to remove the comparison plot; very interesting
data.  If in fact the two analyses used opposite conventions, it
is only necessary to flip the sign of one (or the other) and explain
it to your audience.

By the way, the reason Hermes, Fermilab, etc. use their formalism
is that they are doing semi-inclusive production; they only detect
the baryon.  Of course, to compare to their data, you should use
their convention.

I hope you can still show the comparison data.

 				- Mac

"mestayer at jlab.org", (757)-269-7252

On Thu, 27 Oct 2011, cnepali at jlab.org wrote:

> Hello Mac:
>
> Thanks for your comment. I am looking on this. However, I have used the
> same convention that many groups (Fermi lab, Hermes, etc.) have used in
> transverse polarization of hyperons in exclusive production. I have
> decided to remove the comparison plot for now.
>
> Chandra
>
>> Hello Chandra;
>>
>> You really need to clear this up.
>> I think that Biplab's definition is more typical.
>> In exclusive production of a baryon and a pseudoscalar;
>> usually it is the meson's momentum which is used to
>> define axes, presumably because usually the meson is
>> the directly detected particle.
>>
>> At any rate, do the Sigma+ and Sigma0 results use
>> opposite conventions??
>>
>>  			regards, Mac Mestayer
>>
>> "mestayer at jlab.org", (757)-269-7252
>>
>> On Thu, 27 Oct 2011, Biplab Dey wrote:
>>
>>> My axes definitions are in Fig. 8.1:
>>> http://wwwold.jlab.org/Hall-B/general/thesis/BDey_thesis.pdf
>>> and my definition of the recoil polarization occurs in Eq. 8.31.
>>> I think it's opposite to what you have. That said, I agree, it's
>>> confusing. Andy Sandorfi has compiled a nice table of the ``more
>>> commonly'' used conventions, which you might find useful as well:
>>> http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1108/1108.5411.pdf
>>> All the best,
>>> -Biplab
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, 26 Oct 2011, cnepali at jlab.org wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I have used \hat{n} = \hat{\gamma} X \hat{\sigma}. Asymmetry of the
>>>> decay
>>>> proton is taken with respect to this \hat{n}, +ve along \hat{n}. I can
>>>> show you many-many papers that have used this definition (called P_z).
>>>> Is
>>>> your definition opposite to this? We need to clarify this
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Clas_hadron mailing list
>>> Clas_hadron at jlab.org
>>> https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/clas_hadron
>>>
>>
>
>